The Supreme Court of India directed establishment of exclusive special courts for every 10 to 15 pending NIA trials within one month, observing that delays in terrorism and national security cases defeat speedy justice and adversely affect accused persons and victims.
The Supreme Court directed the establishment of at least one exclusive special court for every 10 to 15 pending trials being prosecuted by the National Investigation Agency (NIA), in a significant move aimed at expediting terrorism-related prosecutions across the country. The Court ordered that these courts be constituted within one month.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed the directions while hearing a suo motu matter titled ‘In Re: Creation of Special Exclusive Courts’. The Bench observed that prolonged delays in trials under anti-terror and national security laws defeat the purpose of speedy justice and adversely affect both accused persons and victims.
Invoking Section 11 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, which empowers the Central government to establish special courts for NIA cases, the Court instructed the Union government to immediately consult the Chief Justices of the concerned High Courts for setting up dedicated courts.
The bench said,
“We request the chief justice of the high courts to consult the state governments to provide requisite and sufficient space for the establishment of special courts where the presiding officers will be entrusted with the trial of cases,”
The Court made it clear that these courts should function exclusively for NIA matters and should not be burdened with other categories of litigation. Stressing the need for uninterrupted proceedings, the Bench directed that trials before such courts must be conducted on a day-to-day basis.
The bench directed,
“It is made clear that there shall be at least one special court for 10 to 15 pending trials,”
The Bench further clarified that wherever the number of pending trials exceeds 15, additional special courts should be constituted to ensure effective disposal. It also instructed state governments to comply with earlier directions regarding the provision of courtrooms, infrastructure and logistical support necessary for the functioning of these exclusive courts.
The Court also examined cases falling under Section 22 of the NIA Act, where state governments prosecute offences through their own special courts. Section 22 authorises states to establish special courts for offences investigated by state agencies under scheduled laws, including terrorism and organised crime matters.
In this regard, the Bench directed Advocate Generals of states, in coordination with the Registrar Generals of the respective High Courts, to furnish updated data regarding pending trials in their jurisdictions. The matter has now been posted for further consideration in July.
The suo motu proceedings were initiated by the Supreme Court amid growing concern over the large pendency of NIA and anti-terror trials across India. During earlier hearings, the Court had sought comprehensive details from all states and Union Territories regarding pending cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act), irrespective of whether they were investigated by central agencies like the NIA and Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) or by state police authorities.
On April 20, the Court had also suggested that the Union government consider providing financial assistance of Rs 1 crore to every state and Union Territory for setting up dedicated courts to handle UAPA and NDPS matters. Earlier, on March 24, the Supreme Court had already directed the creation of special courts specifically for NIA-investigated and UAPA-related cases.
The Bench observed that timely disposal of such cases is essential not only for national security but also to balance the constitutional rights of accused persons awaiting trial and the interests of victims seeking justice. The Court noted that delays running into several years in terror-related prosecutions had become a serious institutional concern requiring immediate corrective measures.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
